Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cost Index Explained

Used appropriately, the cost index (CI) feature of the flight management computer (FMC) can help airlines significantly reduce operating costs. However, many operators dont take full advantage of this powerful tool.

by Bill Roberson, Senior Safety Pilot, Flight Operations

This article is the rst in a series exploring fuel conservation strategies.

Cost index Defined

The CI is the ratio of the time-related cost of an airplane operation and the cost of fuel. The value of the CI reects the relative effects of fuel cost on overall trip cost as compared to time-related direct operating costs. In equation form:CI = Time cost ~ $/hr Fuel cost ~ cents/lb

VARIABLE FUEL PRICES, FUEL TANKERING, AND FUEL HEDGING MAKE THE COST INDEX CALCULATION COMPLICATED.

The range of allowable cost indices is shown in Figure 1. The ight crew enters the companycalculated CI into the control display unit (CDU) of the FMC. The FMC then uses this number and other performance parameters to calculate econ omy (ECON) climb, cruise, and descent speeds. For all models, entering zero for the CI results in maximum range airspeed and minimum trip fuel. This speed schedule ignores the cost of time. Conversely, if the maximum value for CI is entered, the FMC uses a minimum time speed schedule. This speed schedule calls for maximum ight envelope speeds, and ignores the cost of fuel (see g. 2).

26

A E R O Q U A RT E R LY QTR_02 | 07

the RaNGe oF Allowable Cost INdIces For GIveN BoeING AIrplaNes

Figure 1

COST INDEX Usage

In practice, neither of the extreme CI values is used; instead, many operators use values based on their specic cost structure, modied if neces sary for individual route requirements. As a result, CI will typically vary among models, and may also vary for individual routes. Clearly, a low CI should be used when fuel costs are high compared to other operating costs. The FMC calculates coordinated ECON climb (see g. 5), cruise, and descent speeds (see g. 6) from the entered CI. To comply with Air Trafc Control requirements, the airspeed used during descent tends to be the most restricted of the three ight phases. The descent may be planned at ECON Mach/Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) (based on the CI) or a manually entered Mach/CAS. Vertical Navigation (VNAV) limits the maximum target speed as follows: 737-300/-400/-500/-600/-700/-800/-900: The maximum airspeed is velocity maximum operating/Mach maximum operating (VMO/MMO) (340 CAS/.82 Mach). The FMC-generated speed targets are limited to 330CAS in descent to provide margins to VMO. The VMO value of 340 CAS may be entered by the pilot to eliminate this margin. n 747-400: 349 knots (VMO/MMO minus 16knots) or a pilot-entered speed greater than 354 knots (VMO/MMO minus 11 knots). n 757: 334 knots (VMO/MMO minus 16 knots) or a pilot-entered speed greater than 339 knots (VMO/MMO minus 11 knots). n 767: 344 knots (VMO/MMO minus 16 knots) or a pilot-entered speed greater than 349 knots (VMO/MMO minus 11 knots). n 777: 314 knots (VMO/MMO minus 16 knots) or a pilot-entered speed greater than 319 knots (VMO/MMO minus 11 knots).
n

Airplane Model

737-300 737-400 737-500 0-200

737-600 737-700 737-800 737-900 0-500

747-400 0-9999

757 0-999 or 0-9999

767 0-999 or 0-9999

777 0-9999

Cost Index Range

ComparING resUlts For cost INdeX valUes oF Zero aNd maXImUm

Figure 2
CLIMB CRUISE DEScENT

Cost Index 0

Minimum Fuel* VMO/MMO

Maximum Range VMO/MMO

Max L/D VMO/MMO

Cost Index Max

Entering zero for the cost index results in maximum range airspeed and minimum trip fuel. Entering the maximum value for cost index results in a minimum time speed schedule. * Minimum climb contribution to trip fuel; this is different from minimum fuel to cruise altitude.

calcUlated valUes For a tYpIcal 757 FlIGht

Figure 3
757 EXample
CLIMB CRUISE DEScENT ALTITUdE REcOMMENdaTIONS

Cost Index 0

290/.778

.778

250

OPT 328, MAX 362, RECMD 310

Cost Index 9999

345/.847

.847

.819/334

OPT 268, MAX 268, RECMD 260 OPT 327, MAX 363, RECMD 310

Cost Index 70

312/.794

.794

.80/313

Cost INdeX Impact

FMCs also limit target speeds appropriately for initial buffet and limit thrust. Figure 3 illustrates the values for a typical 757 ight.

Figure 4
CURRENT COST INDEX OPTIMUM COST INDEX TIME IMpacT MINUTES aNNUaL COST SaVINGS ($000s)

Factors Affecting Cost index

As stated earlier, entering a CI of zero in the FMC and ying that prole would result in a minimum fuel ight and entering a maximum CI in the FMC and ying that prole would result in a minimum time ight. However, in practice, the CI used by an operator for a particular ight falls within these two extremes. Factors affecting the CI include timerelated direct operating costs and fuel costs.

FLEET

737-400

30 45 40

12 12 22

+1 +3 +2

US$754 $771 US$1,790 $1,971 US$319 $431

737-700

MD-80

BOEING.COM/COMMERC I A L / A E R O M A G A Z I N E

27

Time Cost
The numerator of the CI is often called time-related direct operating cost (minus the cost of fuel). Items such as ight crew wages can have an hourly cost associated with them, or they may be a xed cost and have no variation with ying time. Engines, auxiliary power units, and airplanes can be leased by the hour or owned, and maintenance costs can be accounted for on airplanes by the hour, by the calendar, or by cycles. As a result, each of these items may have a direct hourly cost or a xed cost over a calendar period with limited or no correlation to ying time. In the case of high direct time costs, the airline may choose to use a larger CI to minimize time and thus cost. In the case where most costs are xed, the CI is potentially very low because the airline is primarily trying to minimize fuel cost. Pilots can easily understand minimizing fuel consumption, but it is more difcult to understand minimizing cost when something other than fuel dominates.

The eFFect oF cost INdeX wheN clImbING to crUIse altItUde

Figure 5 A cost index of zero minimizes fuel to climb and cruise to a common point in space.

B INITIAL CRUIsE ALTITUdE

max imu mg CI = radi ent 0 (m inim um fue l)

mi

u nim

tim

p to

oin

tB
Altitude

COsT INdEx INCREAsING

Fuel Cost
The cost of fuel is the denominator of the CI ratio. Although this seems straightforward, issues such as highly variable fuel prices among the operating locations, fuel tankering, and fuel hedging can make this calculation complicated. A recent evaluation at an airline yielded some very interesting results, some of which are summarized in Figure 4. A rigorous study was made of the optimal CI for the 737 and MD-80 eets for this particular operator. The optimal CI was determined to be 12 for all 737 models, and 22 for the MD-80. The table (see g. 4) shows the impact on trip time and potential savings over the course of a year of changing the CI for a typical 1,000-mile trip. The potential annual savings to the airline of changing the CI is between US$4 million and $5 million a year with a negligible effect on schedule.

A
Distance

the eFFect oF cost INdeX wheN desceNdING

Figure 6 A cost index of zero minimizes fuel between a common cruise point and a common end of descent point.

A fINAL CRUIsE ALTITUdE

min imu m ti me

CI

from

0(

mi

nim

poin

um

fue

tAt

Altitude

l)

oB

Summary
CI can be an extremely useful way to manage operating costs. Because CI is a function of both fuel and nonfuel costs, it is important to use it appropriately to gain the greatest benet. Appropriate use varies with each airline, and perhaps for each ight. Boeing Flight Operations Engineering assists airlines ight operations departments in computing an accurate CI that will enable them to minimize costs on their routes. For more information, please contact FlightOps.Engineering@boeing.com.

COsT INdEx INCREAsING B

Distance

28

CRUISE FLIGHT IS THE PHASE OF FLIGHT BETWEEN CLIMB AND DESCENT.

22

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 07

Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cruise Flight

by William Roberson, Senior Safety Pilot, Flight Operations; Robert Root, Flight Operations Engineering; and Dell Adams, Flight Operations Engineer
This article is the second in a series exploring fuel conservation strategies.

A good understanding of cruise flight can not only help crews operate efficiently and save their companies money, but can also help them deal with low fuel situations. As an additional benefit, the less fuel consumed, the more environmentally friendly the flight.
This article denes cruise ight, presents various cruise schemes, and outlines the effects of wind on cruise speed calculations. It also discusses the relationship between cruise ight and cost index (CI) which was discussed in the rst article in this series, Fuel Conservation Strategies: Cost Index Explained in the second-quarter 2007 AERO. Used appropriately, the CI feature of the ight management computer (FMC) can help airlines signicantly reduce operating costs. However, many operators dont take full advantage of this powerful tool.

cruise flight defined

Cruise ight is the phase of ight that falls between climb and descent. The largest percentages of trip time and trip fuel are consumed typically in this phase of ight. As an aside, unanticipated low altitude maneuvering, which also impacts trip time and fuel signicantly, can often be avoided through appropriate cruise planning. The variables that affect the total time and fuel burn are speed selection, altitude selection, and, to some degree, center of gravity (CG). This article focuses on speed selection.

A number of high-level objectives may inuence speed selection. These objectives, which depend on the perspective of the pilot, dispatcher, performance engineer, or operations planner, can be grouped into ve categories: 1. Maximize the distance traveled for a given amount of fuel (i.e., maximum range). 2. Minimize the fuel used for a given distance covered (i.e., minimum trip fuel). 3. Minimize total trip time (i.e., minimum time). 4. Minimize total operating cost for the trip (i.e., minimum cost, or economy [ECON] speed). 5. Maintain the ight schedule. The rst two objectives are essentially the same because in both cases the airplane will be own to achieve optimum fuel mileage.

W WW.BO EI NG.CO M/CO M M E R C Ia L / a E R OM a G a Z IN E

23

Pilots are often forced to deal with shorter-term restraints that may require them to temporarily abandon their cruise strategy one or more times during a flight.

Considerations affecting cruise strategies

In addition to one of the overall strategic objectives listed above for cruise ight, pilots are often forced to deal with shorter term constraints that may require them to temporarily abandon their cruise strategy one or more times during a ight. These situations may include: Flying a xed speed that is compatible with other trafc on a specied route segment. Flying a speed calculated to achieve a required time of arrival (i.e., RTA) at a x. Flying a speed calculated to achieve minimum fuel ow while holding (i.e., maximum endurance). When directed to maintain a specic speed by air trafc control.

possible cruise schemes

There are two theoretical speed selections for the cruise phase of ight. The traditional speed is long-range cruise (LRC). LRC speed is interrelated with maximum-range cruise (MRC) speed, which is

the speed that will provide the furthest distance traveled for a given amount of fuel burned and the minimum fuel burned for a given cruise distance. LRC has been historically dened as the speed above MRC that will result in a 1 percent decrease in fuel mileage in terms of nautical miles per kilogram or pound of fuel burned. The classic text, Aero dynamics for Naval Aviators, revised in 1965, states: Most long-range cruise operation is conducted at the ight condition which provides 99 percent of the absolute maximum specic range. The advantage is that 1 percent of range is traded for 3 to 5 percent higher cruise velocity. Since higher cruise speed has a great number of advantages, the small sacrice of range is a fair bargain. This concept is graphically illustrated in gure 1. Because fuel is not the only direct cost associated with a ight, a further renement in the speed for most economical operation is ECON speed, based on the entered CI. This speed, which includes some tradeoffs between trip time and trip fuel, is based on an estimation of the time-related operating expenses that are specic to each airlines operation. CI is dened as the ratio of timedependent costs to fuel costs.

CI=
Time cost ~ $/hr Fuel cost ~ cents/lb

long-range cruise and cost index

The relationship between LRC speed and ECON speed is different for each Boeing airplane model. As stated, LRC is based on a 1 percent penalty on fuel mileage, while the ECON speed uses CI as an input that is based on a more detailed accounting of actual costs. However, it is possible to derive a CI for normal cruise conditions that approximates

24

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 07

REPRESENTATIVE COMPARISON OF MRC AND LRC

Figure 1 Modern ight management systems automatically adjust LRC speed throughout cruise for weight change due to fuel burn, as well as changes in cruise altitude.

68

MRC: Mach .826

67

1% Penalty

LRC: Mach .840

fUEL MILEaGE (NM/1,000 KG)

66

65

64

63

62 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 MRC 0.83 0.84 LRC 0.85 0.86

CRUIsE MaCh NUMBER

W WW.BO EI NG.CO M/CO M M E R C Ia L / a E R OM a G a Z IN E

25

LRC in terms of the cruise speed that results. Figure 2 shows the approximate relationship for Boeing commercial airplanes. It is very important to note that the LRC speed is almost universally higher than the speed that will result from using the CI selected by most carriers. If faced with a low fuel situation at destination, many pilots will opt to y LRC speed thinking that it will give them the most miles from their remaining fuel. As shown in gure 2, the best strategy to conserve fuel is to select a very low cost index, with zero providing the maximum range. Any pilot can easily demonstrate this during cruise ight by inputting different CIs into the FMC and comparing with LRC by observing the predicted fuel at destination.

For example, in the presence of a strong tailwind, the ECON speed will be reduced in order to maximize the advantage gained from the tailwind during the cruise. Conversely, the ECON speed will be increased when ying into a headwind in cruise to minimize the penalty associated with the headwind (see example in g. 3).

summary
In order for ight crews to achieve optimum cruise operation, it is necessary to rst understand the ights strategic objectives, and then to select the cruise speed that best meets these objectives. It is equally important to recognize that real-world situations may result in the need for deviations from the overriding strategy. Appropriate use varies with each airline, and sometimes even for each ight. Boeing Flight Operations Engineering assists airlines ight operations departments in computing an accurate CI that will enable them to minimize costs on their routes. For more information, please contact FlightOps.Engineering@boeing.com.

the relationship between operating costs and cost index

If fuel prices increase relative to other costs, a corresponding reduction in CI will maintain the most economical operation of the airplane. If, however, an airline experiences rising hourly costs, an increase in CI will retain the most economical operation. In either case, the changing CI will result in changes to the cruise speed calculated by the FMC. Even calculating a cost index based on approximate time costs and ying ECON speed can yield signicant cost benets to the airline. To be used most effectively, CI should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of an operators specic operating costs. For this reason, ight crews typically receive a recommended CI value from their ight operations department, and it is generally not advisable to deviate from this value unless specic short-term constraints demand it.

effects of wind on cruise speed

In addition to more accurately optimizing costs, there is one other benet of ying ECON instead of LRC with most Boeing airplanes. The LRC speed calculated by the FMC is typically not adjusted for winds at cruise altitude but the ECON speed is. As a result, LRC is ideal only for zero wind conditions, while the ECON speed is optimized for all cruise wind conditions.

26

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 07

RELATIONSHIP OF COST INDEX TO LRC FOR BOEING AIRPLANES

Figure 2 The LRC-equivalent cost index varies for different airplane models and engines.

MRC

Typical airline CI values

Better fuel mileage

(nautical miles per kilogram)

LRC

Higher cruise mach number

Entered Cost Index (CI)

AIrpLAne ModeL MRC TYpIcAL AIrLIne CI vALues ApproxIMAte LRC eQuIvALent

717 737-3/4/500 737-6/7/800 757 767 777 MD-11 747-400

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 to 60 5 to 25 10 to 30 15 to 50 15 to 55 90 to 150 80 to 120 25 to 80

70 25 35 85 70 180 200 230

ECON SPEED IS OPTIMIZED FOR CRUISE WIND CONDITIONS

ECON Cruise Mach

COST INDEX 100 KT TAILWIND ZERO WIND 100 KT HEADWIND

Figure 3

0 80 Max**

0.773* 0.787 0.811

0.773 0.796 0.811

0.785 0.803 0.811

*FMC will not slow down below still air CI=0 ECON speed. **At maximum CI, FMC will y at envelope limit in all wind conditions.

W WW.BO EI NG.CO M/CO M M E R C Ia L / a E R OM a G a Z IN E

27

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGHER AND LOWER FLAP SETTING CONFIGURATIONS MAY SEEM SMALL, BUT AT TODAY'S FUEL PRICES THE SAVINGS CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL.

24

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 08

Fuel Conservation Strategies: Takeoff and Climb

By William Roberson, Senior Safety Pilot, Flight Operations; and James A. Johns, Flight Operations Engineer, Flight Operations Engineering
This article is the third in a series exploring fuel conservation strategies.

Every takeoff is an opportunity to save fuel. If each takeoff and climb is performed efficiently, an airline can realize significant savings over time. But what constitutes an efficient takeoff? How should a climb be executed for maximum fuel savings? The most efficient flights actually begin long before the airplane is cleared for takeoff.
This article discusses strategies for fuel savings during the takeoff and climb phases of ight. Subse quent articles in this series will deal with the descent, approach, and landing phases of ight, as well as auxiliary-power-unit usage strategies. The rst article in this series, Cost Index Explained, appeared in the second-quarter 2007 AERO. It was followed by Cruise Flight in the fourth-quarter 2007 issue. But times have clearly changed. Jet fuel prices have increased over ve times from 1990 to 2008. At this time, fuel is about 40 percent of a typical airlines total operating cost. As a result, airlines are reviewing all phases of ight to determine how fuel burn savings can be gained in each phase and in total. This article examines the takeoff and climb phase for four types of commercial airplanes to illustrate various takeoff and climb scenarios and how they impact fuel usage. These analyses look at short-range (e.g., 717), medium-range (e.g., 737-800 with winglets), and long-range (e.g., 777-200 Extended Range and 747-400) airplanes. An important consideration when seeking fuel savings in the takeoff and climb phase of ight is the takeoff ap setting. The lower the ap setting, the lower the drag, resulting in less fuel burned. Figure 1 shows the effect of takeoff ap setting on fuel burn from brake release to a pressure altitude of 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), assuming an acceleration altitude of 3,000 feet (914 meters) above ground level (AGL). In all cases, however, the ap setting must be appropriate for the situation to ensure airplane safety. Higher ap setting congurations use more fuel than lower ap congurations. The difference is small, but at todays prices the savings can be sub stantialespecially for airplanes that y a high number of cycles each day. For example, an operator with a small eet of 717s which ies approximately 10 total cycles per day could save 320 pounds (145 kilograms) of fuel per day by changing its normal takeoff aps setting from 18 to 5 degrees. With a fuel price of US$3.70per U.S.gallon, this would be approximately US$175 per day. Assuming each airplane

Takeoff and climb fuel conservation strategies

In the past, when the price of jet fuel increased by 20 to 30 cents per U.S. gallon, airlines did not concern themselves with fuel conservation in the takeoff and climb segment of the ight because it represents only 8 to 15 percent of the total time of a medium- to long-range ight.

W WW.BO EI NG.CO M/CO M M E R C Ia L / a E R OM a G a Z IN E

25

ThE ROLE OF ThE FLIGhT CREW IN FUEL CONSERVATION

Every area of an airline has a part to play in reducing the cost of the operation. But the ight crew has the most direct role in cutting the amount of fuel used on any given ight. The ight crew has opportunities to affect the amount of fuel used in every phase of ight without compromising safety. These phases include planning, ground operations, taxi out, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, taxi in, and maintenance debrief.

Top fuel conservation strategies for ight crews include: Take only the fuel you need. Minimize the use of the auxiliary power unit. n Taxi as efciently as possible. n Take off and climb efciently. n Fly the airplane with minimal drag. n Choose routing carefully. n Strive to maintain optimum altitude. n Fly the proper cruise speed. n Descend at the appropriate point. n Congure in a timely manner.
n n

is own 350 days per year, the airline could save approxi mately US$61,000 a year. If an airline makes this change to a eet of 717 airplanes that averages 200 cycles a day, it could save more than US$1million per year in fuel costs. Using these same assumptions on fuel price, the potential fuel savings for an operator of a small eet of 747-400s whose airplanes average a total of three cycles per day would be approximately 420 U.S. pounds (191 kilograms) of fuel per day, or approximately US$230. During a year, the operator could save approximately US$84,000. These savings are not as dramatic as the shortrange transport airplane, but clearly they increase as the eet size or number of cycles grows.

Operators need to determine whether their eet size and cycles are such that the savings would make it worthwhile to change procedures and pilot training. Other important factors that determine whether or not it is advisable to change standard takeoff settings include obstacles clearance, runway length, airport noise, and departure procedures. Another area in the takeoff and climb phase where airlines can reduce fuel burn is in the climbout and cleanup operation. If the ight crew per forms acceleration and ap retraction at a lower altitude than the typical 3,000 feet (914meters), the fuel burn is reduced because the drag is being reduced earlier in the climbout phase.

Comparing the fuel usage of two standard climb profiles

Figure 2 shows two standard climb proles for each airplane. These simplied proles are based on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) NADP 1 and NADP 2 proles. Prole 1 is a climb with acceleration and ap retraction beginning at 3,000 feet (914meters) AGL, which is the noise climb-out procedure for close-in noise monitors. Prole 2 is a climb with accelera tion to ap retraction speed beginning at 1,000feet (305meters) AGL, which is the noise climb-out proce dure for far-out noise monitors. As a general rule, when airplanes y Prole 2,

26

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 08

 Impact oF takeoFF FLapS SeLectIoN oN FueL burN

Figure 1

AIrpLaNe ModeL

TakeoFF FLap SettING

TakeoFF GroSS WeIGht

FueL USed

FueL DIFFereNtIaL

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

717-200

5 13 18 5 10 15 5 10 20 10 20 10 20

113,000 (51,256)

933 (423) 950 (431) 965 (438) 1,274 (578) 1,291 (586) 1,297 (588) 3,605 (1,635) 3,677 (1,668) 3,730 (1,692) 5,633 (2,555) 5,772 (2,618) 6,389 (2,898) 6,539 (2,966)

17 (8) 32 (15) 17 (8) 23 (10)

737-800 Winglets

160,000 (72,575)

777-200 Extended Range

555,000 (249,476)

72 (33) 125 (57) 139 (63) 150 (68)

747-400

725,000 (328,855)

747-400 Freighter

790,000 (358,338)

FueL-SaVING poteNtIaL oF two cLImb proFILeS

Figure 2

AIrpLaNe ModeL

TakeoFF GroSS WeIGht

ProFILe TYpe

TakeoFF FLap SettING

FueL USed

FueL DIFFereNtIaL

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

717-200

113,000 (51,256)

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

13

4,025 (1,826) 3,880 (1,760) 5,234 (2,374) 5,086 (2,307)

145 (66) 148 (67) 435 (197) 520 (236) 609 (276)

737-800 Winglets

160,000 (72,575)

10

777-200 Extended Range

555,000 (249,476)

15

14,513 (6,583) 14,078 (6,386) 21,052 (9,549) 20,532 (9,313) 23,081 (10,469) 22,472 (10,193)

747-400

725,000 (328,855)

10

747-400 Freighter

790,000 (358,338)

10

W WW.BO EI NG.CO M/CO M M E R C Ia L / a E R OM a G a Z IN E

27

EFFECT OF COMBINING takeoFF aNd cLImb STRATEGIES

Figure 3

AIrpLaNe ModeL

TakeoFF GroSS WeIGht

ProFILe TYpe

TakeoFF FLap SettING

FueL USed

FueL DIFFereNtIaL

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

Pounds (kilograms)

717-200

113,000 (51,256)

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

18 5 15 5 20 5 20 10 20 10

4,061 (1,842) 3,859 (1,750) 5,273 (2,392) 5,069 (2,299)

202 (92) 204 (93) 692 (314) 887 (403) 1,086 (493)

737-800 Winglets

160,000 (72,575)

777-200 Extended Range

555,000 (249,476)

14,710 (6,672) 14,018 (6,358) 21,419 (9,715) 20,532 (9,313) 23,558 (10,686) 22,472 (10,193)

747-400

725,000 (328,855)

747-400 Freighter

790,000 (358,338)

they use 3 to 4 percent less fuel than when ying Prole 1. Figure 3 shows the combined effect of using a lower takeoff ap setting and ying Prole 2, compared to using a higher takeoff ap setting and ying Prole 1. Combining a lower takeoff ap setting with Prole 2 saves approximately 4 to 5 percent fuel compared to the higher takeoff ap setting and Prole 1. Once the aps are retracted, the crew should accelerate to maximum rate of climb speed. The 737s with ight management computers (FMC) provide this speed directly via the FMC control display unit. All Boeing ight crew training manuals provide guidance for maximum rate of climb speed. It can also be achieved by entering a cost index of

zero in the FMC. (See Cost Index Explained in the second-quarter 2007 AERO.)

Summary
In a time when airlines are scrutinizing every aspect of ight to locate possible opportunities to save fuel, the takeoff and climb phases of ight should be considered as part of an overall fuel savings effort. The impact of incorporating fuel saving strategies into every phase of the operation can result in considerable cost reductions. Boeing Flight Operations Engineering assists airlines ight operations departments in deter mining appropriate takeoff and climb proles specic to their airplane models. For more infor mation, please contact FlightOps.Engineering@boeing.com

Other considerations
From a fuel consumption perspective, a full-thrust takeoff and a full-thrust climb prole offer the most fuel economy for an unrestricted climb. However, from an airlines cost perspective, this must be balanced with engine degradation and time between overhauls, as well as guidance from the engine manufacturer. The airlines engineering department must perform the analysis and provide direction to ight crews to minimize overall cost of operation when using takeoff derates or assumed temperature takeoffs and climbs.

28

a ER O Q U a RTER LY Q TR_04 | 08

Decisions on which type of approach to use vary with each airline, and sometimes even for each ight.

24

A E R O Q U A R T E R LY QTR_02 | 10

Fuel Conservation Strategies: Descent and Approach

The descent and approach phases of ight represent the ight crews nal opportunities to reduce fuel consumption during ight. By carefully planning the airplanes descent and appropriately using drag and high lift devices, the ight crew can ensure a safe landing while saving fuel.
By William Roberson, Chief Pilot Research, and James A. Johns, Flight Operations Engineer, Flight Operations Engineering

This article is the fourth and nal in a series exploring fuel conservation strategies. It discusses strategies for saving fuel during the descent and approach phases of ight. The rst article in this series, Cost Index Explained, appeared in the second-quarter 2007 AERO. It was followed by Cruise Flight in the fourth-quarter 2007 issue and Takeoff and Climb in the fourth-quarter 2008 issue. Fuel conservation is a signicant concern of every airline. An airline can choose an approach procedure and ap setting policy that uses the least amount of fuel,

but it should also consider the trade-offs involved with using this type of procedure. In this article, two types of approaches are analyzed: the standard approach and the low-drag or delayed-aps approach. The cost of a missed approach is also discussed.
THE StANDARD APPROACH

them during various parts of the approach (see g.1).

THE LOW-DRAG OR DELAYED-FLAPS APPROACH

Boeing ight crew training manuals and/or ight crew operating manuals (FCOM) dene standard approach proles for every Boeing model. These proles include specic ap settings and when to select

If the approach is not being conducted in adverse conditions that would make it difcult to achieve stabilized approach criteria, the nal ap selection may be delayed until just prior to 1,000feet above eld elevation (AFE) to conserve fuel and reduce noise and emissions or to accom modate speed requests by air trafc control. This approach is known as a lowdrag,

WWW.BOEING.COM/C O M M E R C I A L / A E R O M A G A Z I N E

25

Figure 1: Standard approach prole for 737models

Boeing ight crew training manuals and/or operating manuals include specic instructions for standard approaches.

Approaching intercept heading Flaps 5 Flaps 5 Intercept heading Instrument Landing System tuned and identied Localizer and glide slope pointers shown Arm approach Second autopilot (A/P) command (dual A/P)

On RADAR vectors Heading select Pitch mode (as needed) Flaps 1

En route to x Lateral navigation or other roll mode Vertical navigation or other pitch mode

NOTE: Dual A/P is available during a two-engine approach only.

Localizer capture Final approach course heading

Glide slope alive Gear down Flaps 15 (nal ap for one engine) Arm speedbrake

Glide slope intercept Landing aps (two engine) Set missed approach altitude Do the Landing Checklist

Fix (locator outer marker, marker, distance measuring equipment) Verify crossing altitude

500 feet Verify Autopilot Flight Director System status (dual A/P) Minimum use height for single A/P (see limitations chapter) Disengage A/P and auto throttles

Touchdown Disengage A/P (dual A/P)

26

A E R O Q U A R T E R LY QTR_02 | 10

Figure 2: Fuel savings estimates for delayed-aps approach procedure

The delayed-aps approach uses 15 to 380 fewer pounds of fuel than the standard approach with the same ap setting.

AIRPLANE ENGINE

LANDING WEIGHT LBs(KG)

LANDING FLAP (DEG)

PROCEDURE

FUEL BURNEd LBs(KG)

FUEL DIFFERENTIAL LBs(KG)

30 737-800 CFM56-7B24 120,000 (54,431) 40

Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed Standard Delayed

230 (104) 213 (97) 266 (121) 230 (104) 590 (268) 540 (245) 610 (277) 230 (104) 400 (181) 370 (168) 440 (200) 390 (177) 850 (385) 790 (358) 920 (417) 820 (372) 100 (45) 60 (27) 50 (23) 30 (14) 380 (172) 50 (23) 36 (16) 17 (8)

25 747-400 CF6-80C2B1F 450,000 (20,411) 30

25 767-300 CF6-80C2B4 270,000 (122,469) 30

25 777-200 GE90-94B 450,000 (204,411) 30

delayed-aps, or noise-abatement approach. The actual steps to use vary by airplane model and are described in the FCOM, ight crew training manual, or airline stan dard operating policy. These are the general steps for the 737, 757, 767, and 777:

Approaching 1,000feet AFE, select landing aps, reduce the speed to the nal approach speed, and then adjust thrust to maintain it. Perform the Landing Checklist.

FUEL SAVINGS ASSOCIAtED WItH DELAYED-FLAPS APPROACH

737: Intercept the glide slope with gear down and aps 15 at aps 15speed. 757/767/777: Intercept the glide slope with gear down and aps 20 at aps 20speed. Note: The thrust required to descend on the glide slope may be near idle.

Note for the 757/767/777: In particularly noise-sensitive areas, use the technique above but delay extending the landing gear until 1,500feet AFE.

Depending on the ap setting and airplane model, the delayed-aps approach uses 15to 380fewer pounds of fuel than the standard approach with the same ap setting (see g.2). To repeat, this approach should only be conducted in conditions that do not make it difcult to achieve a stabilized approach criteria.

WWW.BOEING.COM/C O M M E R C I A L / A E R O M A G A Z I N E

27

Figure 3: Additional fuel burn attributed to missed approaches

The fuel burned during one missed approach is equivalent to 2 to 28 times the fuel burn required for a descent and approach.

AIRPLANE/ENGINE

ADDITIONAL FUEL BURN LBs(KG)

737-800 CFM56-7B24 747-400 CF6-80C2B1F 767-300 CF6-80C2B4 777-200 GE90-94B

280 (127) 1,400 (635) 610 (277) 880 (399)

THE COSt OF A MISSED APPROACH

Planning an approach to minimize fuel consumption

Seven key points should be considered when planning an approach and descent to minimize fuel consumption: 1. Plan the descent carefully. 2. Start the descent at the proper point. 3. Fly the most economical speed. 4. Use idle thrust for descents. 5. Avoid ying extended periods at low altitudes. 6. Congure aps and gear for landing at the optimal time. 7. Use the most appropriate nal aps setting for landing.

Although reduced-ap, delayed-ap, or low-drag approach procedures can save an airline signicant amounts of fuel over time, if these procedures are inappropriately applied resulting in a missed approach, the subsequent additional fuel burn required for the missed approach and additional ight pattern with nullify all the fuel saving efforts employed on the entire ight. It cannot be overemphasized that the rst priority of the crew is to y the descent and approach safely and to be in a position to land at the appropriate time. The typical missed-approach procedure is to apply go-around thrust, retract the aps and gear while climbing to a minimum of 1,500feet AFE, and accelerate to a minimum of aps-up maneuvering speed. Depending on the airplane model and landing ap conguration, the fuel burned during one missed approach is equivalent to 2to 28times the fuel burn required for a

descent and approach (see g.3). There will also be the fuel required to y an additional trafc pattern.
SUMMARY

Flight crews can vary their approach procedures and ap selections to match the ights strategic objectives, which almost always include fuel conservation, noise abatement, and emissions reduction. Decisions on which type of approach to use vary with each airline, and sometimes even for each ight. Boeing Flight Operations Engineering assists airlines ight operations depart ments in planning low-drag approaches for any airport in the world. For more information, please contact FlightOps. Engineering@boeing.com.

28

A E R O Q U A R T E R LY QTR_02 | 10